4 ms·

I disagree. If you're making a claim that we are in an economic bubble, you can't claim victory if there's a stock market crash after twenty years. Similarly, i

I disagree. If you're making a claim that we are in an economic bubble, you can't claim victory if there's a stock market crash after twenty years. Similarly, if you're saying that only X years left before things take turn for the worse, you can't say, "Hey, I did say at some point it will." '500 days' is particularly funny since I don't see what climate models give such a definite timeline. I don't think it hurts to rely on common sense a bit. There's absolutely no scientific reason to think that Britain will turn into Siberia in four years. Global cooling, which was a major fear, has long disappeared from Climate Change discussion. Besides, there are many stories with definite timelines that portray the sentiments. For eg, food shortages and global cooling were major doomsday fears in 1970s.

rhn_mk1 6y ago
> If you're making a claim that we are in an economic bubble, you can't claim victory if there's a stock market crash after twenty years. What's the timeframe then? If you are the person who decides what the person actually meant, you're no longer evaluating facts. Perhaps it's better to just leave out such vague claims altogether. > if you're saying that only X years left before things take turn for the worse That's not what any of the examples said though. The examples said "we have only X years to take action, otherwise we may pass the implied point of no return, which will become apparent much later". Unless those examples specify what the point of no return is, they are effectively impossible to evaluate as well. > I don't see what climate models give such a definite timeline > There's absolutely no scientific reason to think that Britain will turn into Siberia in four years. Of course you can evaluate the claims according to your own opinion, but then you will lose the claim to objectivity (at this point I lose interest personally), and then you risk unwittigly making your list political on top of that.
- shubhamjain 6y ago
  Fair point about objectivity. Thank you! Yeah, I think it's best to assume nothing at all and be completely fact-driven.
tomcam 6y ago
Agreed. Your assessments are at least as commonsensical as Politifact, Snopes, etc.

rhn_mk1 6y ago

> If you're making a claim that we are in an economic bubble, you can't claim victory if there's a stock market crash after twenty years. What's the timeframe then? If you are the person who decides what the person actually meant, you're no longer evaluating facts. Perhaps it's better to just leave out such vague claims altogether. > if you're saying that only X years left before things take turn for the worse That's not what any of the examples said though. The examples said "we have only X years to take action, otherwise we may pass the implied point of no return, which will become apparent much later". Unless those examples specify what the point of no return is, they are effectively impossible to evaluate as well. > I don't see what climate models give such a definite timeline > There's absolutely no scientific reason to think that Britain will turn into Siberia in four years. Of course you can evaluate the claims according to your own opinion, but then you will lose the claim to objectivity (at this point I lose interest personally), and then you risk unwittigly making your list political on top of that.

shubhamjain 6y ago
Fair point about objectivity. Thank you! Yeah, I think it's best to assume nothing at all and be completely fact-driven.

tomcam 6y ago

Agreed. Your assessments are at least as commonsensical as Politifact, Snopes, etc.